On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court of Ghana delivered a significant judgment in *Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v. Commissioner-General, Ghana Revenue Authority*, dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The case turns on the interpretation of the tax dispute resolution framework under the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) as amended, and establishes binding principles on the finality of objection decisions, the validity of successive objections, and the conditions that must be met before a right of appeal arises.
Background
Seadrill Ghana Operations Limited is a Ghanaian-registered branch of a foreign company, engaged as a subcontractor providing a drilling unit and associated services in Ghana. Following a tax audit covering the years 2012 to 2018, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) served a tax audit assessment on 8 November 2019 for approximately US$305.6m, comprising direct taxes of approximately US$65.9m and indirect taxes of approximately US$239.6m.
Seadrill filed a timely objection on 11 December 2019. The Commissioner-General (CG) exercised his discretion under Section 42(6) of Act 915 to accept an objection deposit of approximately US$12.5m in lieu of the 30% ordinarily required under Section 42(5). On 8 July 2020, the CG issued an objection decision under Section 43 revising the liability to approximately US$22.7m inclusive of that deposit.
Seadrill did not appeal to the High Court within the statutory period. Instead, it sent a further letter on 28 July 2020 raising additional objections to the audit report. No new deposit was paid or waiver sought. On 1 December 2020, the CG issued a further letter reducing the liability to approximately US$17.9m inclusive of the deposit. Seadrill responded with yet another challenge on 30 December 2020. The CG declined on 24 March 2021 to entertain further review, stating it lacked statutory authority to do so. A subsequent letter of 8 October 2021 from the Commissioner of the Domestic Tax Revenue Division reiterated that the 1 December 2020 figure was final and directed Seadrill to settle the outstanding balance of approximately US$5.4m.
Seadrill filed a Notice of Tax Appeal before the High Court on 8 November 2021, treating the CG's October 2021 letter as the operative objection decision. The CG raised a preliminary objection on the grounds that the appeal was out of time.
The decisions below
The High Court upheld the preliminary objection. It held that the only valid objection was that filed on 11 December 2019 against the original assessment, and that the operative objection decision for appeal purposes was the CG's communication of 1 December 2020. The statutory 30-day appeal period therefore ran from that date. Because Seadrill filed its notice of appeal on 8 November 2021, nearly eleven months later, the appeal was out of time. The High Court further held that subsequent correspondence with the CG could not constitute fresh objection decisions capable of restarting the appeal period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Seadrill's appeal and affirmed those findings. Seadrill then appealed to the Supreme Court on three grounds.
Issue 1: whether the 1 December 2020 letter was a "tax decision" open to further objection
Seadrill argued that once an objection decision revises an earlier tax liability, it becomes a new "tax decision" under Section 41, which can itself be challenged by a fresh objection under Section 42, particularly when Sections 42(1) and 42(9) are read together.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument. It held that the tax dispute resolution process under Act 915 is "sequential, purposeful, and finite." Act 915 provides for one round of administrative objection followed by appeal; it does not create a system permitting objections to be pursued endlessly. The Court was emphatic that amending a tax liability through an objection decision does not transform that decision into a new tax decision, and does not create a fresh right of objection. Accepting Seadrill's reading would destroy finality in tax administration and render appeal timelines meaningless. This ground was dismissed.
Issue 2: whether Seadrill's letter of 30 December 2020 was a valid objection
The Court held that because the 1 December 2020 document was an objection decision and not a tax decision, Seadrill's 30 December 2020 letter could not constitute a valid objection under Section 42. Section 42 permits objections only against a tax decision, not against an objection decision.
The Court also noted that Seadrill had paid no fresh 30% deposit under Section 42(5) and had not obtained an express waiver or variation under Section 42(6). The Court confirmed that the deposit requirement, or a formally granted waiver, is a condition precedent to the entertainment of any objection. It rejected the suggestion that the CG's willingness to respond to correspondence amounted to an implied waiver, noting that the CG had consistently denied that the subsequent letters carried legal standing as valid objections. This ground was also dismissed.
Issue 3: whether the CG's letter of 8 October 2021 triggered a right of appeal
Seadrill relied on the broad definition of "decision" in Section 41(5), arguing that the October 2021 letter amounted to an objection decision under Section 43 capable of grounding an appeal under Section 44.
The Court rejected this. The precise question was not whether the letter was a "decision" in a general sense, but whether it was an objection decision within the specific meaning of Section 43. Because Seadrill's 30 December 2020 letter was not a valid objection, there was no valid antecedent objection in existence when the CG wrote on 8 October 2021. Without a valid antecedent objection under Section 42, the CG's letter could not constitute a valid objection decision under Section 43 and therefore did not trigger the right of appeal under Section 44. The Court characterised the October 2021 letter as, at best, an administrative communication reiterating a prior position and providing updated payment directions. This ground was dismissed and the appeal was wholly rejected.
Practical implications
The judgment has four immediate consequences for taxpayers operating in Ghana, including multinational enterprises.
One round of objection only. Once the CG has issued an objection decision under Section 43, the taxpayer's sole recourse is to appeal to the High Court within the statutory period. A taxpayer cannot re-engage the GRA administratively and treat the response as a fresh decision that resets the clock.
Deposit requirements are non-negotiable. Any purported objection that is not accompanied by the statutory 30% deposit, or a formally granted waiver or variation under Section 42(6), is not a valid objection. An implied waiver cannot be inferred from the GRA's willingness to correspond.
Not every GRA letter creates appeal rights. A communication from the CG will trigger the right of appeal under Section 44 only if it constitutes a valid objection decision under Section 43, itself arising from a valid objection under Section 42. Administrative letters that merely reiterate a position or give payment directions do not qualify.
Statutory deadlines are strict. Continued engagement with the GRA after an objection decision has been issued will not preserve or revive the right of appeal. Taxpayers must file appeals within the prescribed period from the date of the operative objection decision, and should seek advice promptly whenever an assessment or objection decision is unfavourable.